Joseph B. Kadane

Nature of Bayesian Inference Standard Normal Theory Inference Problems Bayesian Assessment of Assumptions: Effect of Non-Normality on Inferences About a Population Mean with Generalizations Bayesian Assessment of Assumptions: Comparison of Variances Random Effect Models Analysis of Cross Classification Designs Inference About Means with Information from More than One Source: One-Way Classification and Block Designs Some Aspects of Multivariate Analysis Estimation of Common Regression Coefficients Transformation of Data Tables References Indexes.

Abstract This article describes approximations to the posterior means and variances of positive functions of a real or vector-valued parameter, and to the marginal posterior densities of arbitrary (i.e., not necessarily positive) parameters. These approximations can also be used to compute approximate predictive densities. To apply the proposed method, one only needs to be able to maximize slightly modified likelihood functions and to evaluate the observed information at the maxima. Nevertheless, the resulting approximations are generally as accurate and in some cases more accurate than approximations based on third-order expansions of the likelihood and requiring the evaluation of third derivatives. The approximate marginal posterior densities behave very much like saddle-point approximations for sampling distributions. The principal regularity condition required is that the likelihood times prior be unimodal. Key Words: Bayesian inferenceLaplace methodAsymptotic expansionsComputation of integrals

Elicitation is a key task for subjectivist Bayesians. Although skeptics hold that elicitation cannot (or perhaps should not) be done, in practice it brings statisticians closer to their clients and subject-matter expert colleagues. This article reviews the state of the art, reflecting the experience of statisticians informed by the fruits of a long line of psychological research into how people represent uncertain information cognitively and how they respond to questions about that information. In a discussion of the elicitation process, the first issue to address is what it means for an elicitation to be successful; that is, what criteria should be used. Our answer is that a successful elicitation faithfully represents the opinion of the person being elicited. It is not necessarily “true” in some objectivistic sense, and cannot be judged in that way. We see that elicitation as simply part of the process of statistical modeling. Indeed, in a hierarchical model at which point the likelihood ends and the prior begins is ambiguous. Thus the same kinds of judgment that inform statistical modeling in general also inform elicitation of prior distributions. The psychological literature suggests that people are prone to certain heuristics and biases in how they respond to situations involving uncertainty. As a result, some of the ways of asking questions about uncertain quantities are preferable to others, and appear to be more reliable. However, data are lacking on exactly how well the various methods work, because it is unclear, other than by asking using an elicitation method, just what the person believes. Consequently, one is reduced to indirect means of assessing elicitation methods. The tool chest of methods is growing. Historically, the first methods involved choosing hyperparameters using conjugate prior families, at a time when these were the only families for which posterior distributions could be computed. Modern computational methods, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo, have freed elicitation from this constraint. As a result, now both parametric and nonparametric methods are available for low-dimensional problems. High-dimensional problems are probably best thought of as lacking another hierarchical level, which has the effect of reducing the as-yet-unelicited parameter space. Special considerations apply to the elicitation of group opinions. Informal methods, such as Delphi, encourage the participants to discuss the issue in the hope of reaching consensus. Formal methods, such as weighted averages or logarithmic opinion pools, each have mathematical characteristics that are uncomfortable. Finally, there is the question of what a group opinion even means, because it is not necessarily the opinion of any participant.

Summary A useful discrete distribution (the Conway–Maxwell–Poisson distribution) is revived and its statistical and probabilistic properties are introduced and explored. This distribution is a two-parameter extension of the Poisson distribution that generalizes some well-known discrete distributions (Poisson, Bernoulli and geometric). It also leads to the generalization of distributions derived from these discrete distributions (i.e. the binomial and negative binomial distributions). We describe three methods for estimating the parameters of the Conway–Maxwell–Poisson distribution. The first is a fast simple weighted least squares method, which leads to estimates that are sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. The second method, using maximum likelihood, can be used to refine the initial estimates. This method requires iterations and is more computationally intensive. The third estimation method is Bayesian. Using the conjugate prior, the posterior density of the parameters of the Conway–Maxwell–Poisson distribution is easily computed. It is a flexible distribution that can account for overdispersion or underdispersion that is commonly encountered in count data. We also explore two sets of real world data demonstrating the flexibility and elegance of the Conway–Maxwell–Poisson distribution in fitting count data which do not seem to follow the Poisson distribution.